City Council Agenda Packet 07-26-1982AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
July 26, 1982 - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor: Arve Grimsmo
Council Members: Fran Fair, Dan Blonigen, Ken Maus, Phil White.
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of the Minutes for the Meeting Held on July 12, 1982.
3. Petitions, Requests, Complaints/Citizens Comments.
Old Business.
4. Consideration of a Request to Increase Relief Association Benefits
for the Volunteer Fire Department.
5. Consideration of Price Quotations for Construction of Freight Loading
Dock and Walk -In Cooler Expansion.
6. Consideration of Retaining Wall Alternatives as part of 7th Street
I,nyrcv�riant.
7. Resolution Accepting Petition and Authorizing Preparation of a
Feasibility Report for Sewer and Water to Meadow Oak Subdivision.
B. Resolution Accepting bid and Awarding Contract for Seal Coating of
City Streets.
New Business.
9. Consideration of a Request to Extend a Varianeo Granted to Trinity
Lutheran Church.
30. Consideration of a Roqucst by Marvin George to Defer Special Assess-
mants.
11. Consideration of a Proposal for City Council and Planning Commission
to meat in a joint session.
12. Consideration of Approval for a ono day 3.2 beer licenno for St.
ibnry'a Fall Foatival on September 19, 1982.
13. Razoning Requoat - Rosewood Corporation.
14. Ordinance Amendmant for a Go -Kart Track.
15. Conditional Uso - Jim Tallow.
AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
July 26, 1982 - 7:30 P.M.
Page R2
16. Ordinance Amendment for a Planned Unit Development.
17. Quarterly Department Head Reports.
A) Public Works.
8) Law Enforcement.
C) Senior Citizens.
D) YMCA Detached Worker.
E) Planning 6 Zoning.
F) Administration.
G) Fire Department.
18. Consideration of July Billa.
11!. Adjourn.
COUNCIL UPDATE
July 26, 1982
AN OUTING ON THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER (L.K.)
John Uban of Howard Dahlgren Associates is trying to set up a day for
the Planning Coammission and Council to came down to the City and spend
a day on Howard Dahlgren's river boat. John is suggesting that we con-
sider a Saturday or Sunday in either late August or the month of
September for that outing.
Two years ago Arve and I and our wives spent an afternoon on Howard's
boat touring on the Mississippi and had a very pleasant afternoon. I
would strongly recommend that the Council and the Planning Commission
consider taking advantage of this opportunity to spend a day on the
Mississippi on Howard's stern wheeler.
If you could, let Tom, or myself know which would be the best dates
for you individually to go on an outing such as this and we will give
the information to John Uban at Howard Dahlgren's and most likely the
afternoon would be scheduled when the moat people could attend.
CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION TO MEET IN JOINT SESSION. (L.K.).
The Planning Commission would like to sot up a working session with the
City Council some day during the week of July 26th or August 2nd to
discuss the upcoming ordinance amendment for a R-5 zoning district which
would be one which would accommodate manufactured homes in such a way
as to make the R-5 zoning district a more desirable area for manufactured
homes to be located in than would be R-1, R-2 and R-3 zoning districts.
Possibly, you could consider at Monday night's meeting a date for which
this working session could be set.
APPOINTEE. TO THF. PLANNING COMMISSION.
John eondhuo has agreed to continue on the Planning Commission until such
time as the Planning Commission members have determined two individuals
who they would like to recommend as an appointee to take John Rondhus'a
place, therefore it may be another month in the 'Coming before any rec-
ommendations aro made for perspective now Planning Commission members.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING- MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
i July 12, 1982 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Yen Maus, Phil White,
and Dan Blonigen.
Members Absent: None.
I. Call To Order.
A) Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting field on June 28, 1982.
A motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maus to approve the
minutes of the meeting held on June 28, 1982. Voting in
favor: Fair, Maus, Grimsmo. Voting in opposition: tone.
Abstaining: White and Blonigen.
B) Petitions, Requests, Complaints/Citizens Comments.
Administrator Eidem presented a petition from Jim Boyle,
owner of property in southeast Monticello, requesting sewer
and water extension and that a feasibility atudybe completed
:ar.J that - pL..-.- h:car!ng .... .... -... ..... text of the Pct. -
tion is on file with the city office. The City Council
acknowledged receipt of petition and directed that all noces-
Bary documentation be prepared for July 26, 1982 regular
meeting. Tom Eidem also announced an addition to the agenda
which was Dir. Jim Boyle and Mr. Knutson, representing them-
selves and their interests in Meadow Oak Subdivision. Their
request was to appear before the Council at thin time rather
than in two weeks after the Planning Commission so that Mr.
Boyle would not have to make a second trip from Arizona.
Tl:o Council accepted the addition to the agenda.
Jr. A) Consideration of a Resolution Deferring (Or Abating) Ausoea-
ments Against Outlet A, Inuring Hillside Terrace.
Mayor Grimsmo asked F.idem why this item was being reconsider -
ad on this agenda, when he understood the matter to be have
been resolved at the Juno 28, 1982 meeting. fiidem explained
that during the interim between meetings that staff members
find discussed several options that had possibly been over-
looked when the first dcciaion was made. lie stated that the
primary concern by the staff was that if the assessments
are abated, the selling price for said Outlot could increase
substantially since the current owner would have nothing to
lose by not selling. Eidem also stated that his primary con-
cern was the setting of a precedent and establishing a prac-
tice of giving relief on assessments long past cortifiod.
- 1 - =77__.
Council Minutes - 7/12/82
Council Member Maus wondered whether or not the assessments
could be deferred for a specified period of time in order to
facilitate the Salo of the land and porhapo if the land in
oLill unsold, it could be reviewed again when that Lima limit
expires. A motion was made by Dlonigen, seconded by Maus and
carried to adopt the following resolution. Full text on file
in the city office. (Soo Resolution 1982 050).
D) Consideration of Granting One -Day 3.2 Deer and "cot -up"
License to the Monticello Rod 6 Gun Club.
Eidem presented to the Council applicationo by the Monticello
Rod 6 Gun Club for one day 3.2 boor licenses and one day set-
up licences for the dates of Auguot 13th, 1982 and Auguot 21,
1982. A motion was made by Maus, aocondod by White and was
carried unanimously granting one day licensee for the dates
specified and further, requesting that certificates of inaur-
once be supplied by the Monticello Rod a Gun Club.
2 _�
Ile stated that adjustments to assessments in Dolker's Sub- I
division have just been recertified to accommodate those
land owners and that he fully anticipates another group of
property owners presently dissatisfied with the assessments
will be coming before the Council in a the month. Mr. Lauring
spoke to the Council stating that he had left the last meeting
with the full understanding that this matter was fully re-
solved and was quite surprised to find that it was on the
agenda again. He stated that the lot never should have been
assessed in the first place being that it is an unbuildable
outlot and that he would now like to have the assessments re-
moved so that he has no financial obligation to that parcel.
The Mayor noted that there was an assessment hearing at the
time that the role was established and that if it should not
have been assessed, it, in fact, should have been addressed
at that time. Mr. Lauring again said that he would like to
sell the land for $2500, and had no intention of "holding up"
anyone. Mr. Eidem asked for a clarification concerning the
$2500. lie wondered whether or not if the land sold for
$2500, was it Mr. Lauring's intent to then pay the assessments
out of that $2500 or did he see $2500 as the actual sale of
land price clear of any assessments. Mr. Leering indicated
that that was the lend prise clear e" all acses.^ents. Mr.
Lauring stated that in his opinion no one would be willing to
buy the land if they had to pay the assessments on it as well. "
'—'
Eidem noted that the original concern that was brought up was,
as a result, that while this outlet carried the majority of
assessments for the improvements, the parcel of land adjacent
to it, having very little street frontage was assessed a very
small amount and that in the event that the two parcels were
combined, the then owner would have a substantially improved
parcel paying little or no assessments in the ovent that the so
outlet aaaeeament were abated.
Council Member Maus wondered whether or not the assessments
could be deferred for a specified period of time in order to
facilitate the Salo of the land and porhapo if the land in
oLill unsold, it could be reviewed again when that Lima limit
expires. A motion was made by Dlonigen, seconded by Maus and
carried to adopt the following resolution. Full text on file
in the city office. (Soo Resolution 1982 050).
D) Consideration of Granting One -Day 3.2 Deer and "cot -up"
License to the Monticello Rod 6 Gun Club.
Eidem presented to the Council applicationo by the Monticello
Rod 6 Gun Club for one day 3.2 boor licenses and one day set-
up licences for the dates of Auguot 13th, 1982 and Auguot 21,
1982. A motion was made by Maus, aocondod by White and was
carried unanimously granting one day licensee for the dates
specified and further, requesting that certificates of inaur-
once be supplied by the Monticello Rod a Gun Club.
2 _�
Council Minutes - 7/12/82
L
i C) Consideration of Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding Con-
tract for the Improvement of 7th Street Between Trunk Hwy 25
and Cedar Street.
The City Engineer, John Badalich, reported on the bids that
were opened on Thursday, July 8th, 1982 at 10:00 A.M. The
bids are as follows:
Base Bid Total plus Total plus
Alternate A Alternate B
Bituminous Consulting 6
Contractors,
Minneapolis, M11, 33,452.00 45,222.50 41,106.50
Veit 6 Co.
Rogers, MN. 31,555.00 40,511.50 39,871.00
Wisconsin Country Stone
Golden Valley, MN. 37,457.00 43,169.00 47,096.00
Acro Asphalt, Inc.
llamel, MN 31,825.00 39,542.00 37,BG2.50
Buffalo Bituminous
Buffalo, Mll. 28,270.00 38,770.00 34,234.00
Clnann Construction
llanover, M11. 25,915.70 37,980.20 31,501.70
John Badalich further reported that lie had run reference checks
from the lowest responsible bidder and that they had good ref-
erence checks and that lie could recommend that the job be
awarded to the lowest bidder. Council member asked about any
forseeable changes in the overall area which might justify
using the cheaper of the two retaining wall alternates, that
being the timber wall as opposed to the stone wall. Badalich
stated that he could anticipate no major changes in that even
MNDOT offorts to widen lMy 25 would not interfor with the
project as designed. Considerable discussion centered on the
advantagos/disadvantagoe of the lannon stone retaining wall
alternate as opp000d to the timber retaining wall alternate.
Council Member Blonigen said that he did not believe the scone
wall justified the additional SG400 expense. It was noted by
certain staff members that the stone would be more aeathoti-
cally pleasing and that since it was abutting on the cemetery
which is a historical land mark, perhaps the City would con -
eider spending the additional money to make a substantial
improvement to the area. It was also noted that the surround-
ing area, namely Perkins and the now motel, would be comple-
mented more by the stone wall than the timber wall.
3�
Council Minutes - 7/12/82
•1 Council Member I•taus, while expressing favor with the stone wall,
{ expressed further concern with the apparent disparity of price
between the base bid and the lannon stone alternate, that being
approximately $12,000. It was decided to award the job based
on the base bid and investigate securing additional price quotes
on the retaining wall portion of the job. A motion was made by
White, seconded by Blonigen and carried unanimously to adopt the
following resolution. The entire text is on file at the city
office. (See Resolution 1982 051).
NOTE: Because certain members of the public had not yet arrived
to discuss their items on the agenda, the Mayor elected to move
onto other items of business. The remainder of the minutes does
not follow in order with the agenda as originally established.
D) Consideration of Plans and Specifications for Seal Coating
Streets within the City of Monticello.
John Simola, Public works Director, presented to the Council
plans and specifications for the seal coating of several blocks
within the City. He discussed an apparent budgeting discrep-
ancy. lie noted that the original seal coating plan called for
a six year repeating cycle with an allocation of $28,200 an-
nually. lie ..tent an to cxilain that in 1991, the first yeas
of this cycle, substantially more streets were seal coated
for the dollar value than was originally anticipated and that
as a result the 1982 budget showed a decreased appropriation
in order to bring the improvement cycle back in alignment with
itself. The 1982 budget appropriation was set at $17,000. lie
noted, however, that a $13,000 appropriation was made in the
1982 budget to do overlay work on a service road at the South
end of Monticello and thnt this road did not need the overlay
as wan originally anticipated. Thus, the $13,000 appropria-
tion could be freed up for seal coating. A motion was made by
whito, seconded by Fair and was unanimously carried to approve
the plans and specifications for seal coating and calling for
bids.
E) Consideration of a Request for Financial Assistance with the
Monticello area Chemical Awareness Program.
Mr. Duddy Gay, representing the Monticello area Chemical
Awareness Program, was present to request a contribution
from the City in the form of matching funds up to but not
exceeding $3,000. lie presented to the Council a copy of
Cho 1901 - 1902 financial statement for the program and a
list of accomplishments for the pant year. lie stated that
their plans are to expand the program in the upcoming year
and as a result, their coats would be growing. lie indi-
catod that their canvassing efforts for contributions have
also Wen expanded and that in this yoar'a drivo to raino
funds, they wars approaching both the City and the Township.
Council Minutes - 7/12/82
7
_{ Council Member Fair wanted to know what kind of b•_nefits
J have been achieved during the first year of the program.
hir. Gay responded that the PIP Program had grown and
achieved acceptance and that the Monticello Awareness
Program had been asked to be a leader in the field and
that they had become recognized as an excellent program.
Mayor Grimsmo made his comment that in his estimation
that government bodies only belong where other agencies
or people are unable to address the needs and that lie
did not think that this was one of those areas. Council
Member Maus expressed some concern over the fact that the
Monticello group was holding the PIP Fest at a substantial
local expense. lie stated that lie had no objection when the
money was being spent internally, but could we justify the
expense when the money is being spent on others. Council
Member White stated that he fully supported the program
but would request that the task force do everything in its
power to raise other funds and to continue looking around
before approaching the City for money. lie stated that lie
would hats to see the task force fail for lack of money,
but encouraged their seeking other revenue sources. Council
Member Blonigen spoke and stated that lie was in agreement
wit!. nzi= • - .,r_.,^c and that hn did not think. the C:'_-..^ula
be contributing money for this particular group. Eidem
stated that lie favored a modified type of approach in that
-- he feels the program is extremely worthy and that in fact
government should lend its support to the program, but that
the Look force should try to find innovative mothods in
which the City could help rather than outright cash con-
tributions. Ile noted that chemical abuse throughout the
state and nation has reached epidemic proportions and that
it is overyona'a responsibility to do something about it,
but that he could not endorse an outright cash contribution
to the program, but could fully support any other innovative
ways that the City government might he able to anoint the
chemical awareness task force.
A motion was made by Maus, seconded by Fair for the City to
contribute $1,000 to the 1982 - 1983 Chemical Awarunuus
Program. Voting in favor ware White, Fair and Maus. Voting
in oppositionworo Blonigon and Grimsmo.
F) Consideration of Adopting as Ordinance, the Granting of a
Non-exclusive Franchise to North Control Public service
Company (A Natural Gas Company) .
Mr. Thomas Gallogly, representing North Control Public
Service Company, was present to answer any questions the
Council might have concerning the 25 year non-oxclunivu
_ franchise for the distribution of natural gas within the
City.
5 -�
Council Minutes - 7/12/82
Eidem reported that the franchise would be granted to the
ordinance procedure and that City Attorney, Pringle, had
reviewed the ordinance text and given it his approval. A
motion was made by White, seconded by Blonigen and carried
unanimously to adopt the following ordinance granting a
non-exclusive franchise to North Central Public Service
Company for the distribution of natural gas.
G. Consideration of a Request to Construct a Freight Loading
Dock at Hiway Liquors.
Eidem presented to the Council a feasibility plan for the
construction of a freight loading dock at Hiway Liquors.
tie stated that he and Mr. Irmiter had discussed the po-
tential advantages of such a loading dock. lie noted that
it would shorten the time for unloading of beer and other
Inventory and eliminate the necessity of city personnel
making second, third and possibly fourth moves of the in-
ventory once inside the building, since the inventory
would be loaded by pallet inside of by individual cases.
fie also noted that the quicker that loading could be ac-
complialacd, the less time the doors would stand open,
thus creating a substantial energy savings.
Council Member Maus spoke in favor of the proposal stating
that he was aware of how much more efficiently the opera-
tion could run. Ho also addressed the next item on the
agenda which woo a request to conatrur:t an expansion to
the walk-in cooler and stated that perhaps both projects
should be done in conjunction with one another since they
both rolato to greater inventory and caoc of storage.
A motion woo made by Maus, seconded by Fair to secure
price quoted (bids) for the construction of aloading dock
and construction of a walk-in cooler expansion at the
Iliway Liquoro Store. Tho motion was carried unanimously.
it. Consideration ofaPreaentation of Plana for Meadow oak
SuLdivision.
Mr. Boyle and Mr. Knutson, representing Meadow Oak Sub-
division, ware present as an addition to the agenda, to
give a preliminary explanation of their subdivision plans.
Mr. Knutson noted that the three types of housing that
will be available in the Meadow Oak Subdivision will to
the executive hoarse site which has a ton year period phaoo
and a manufacturer) housing area which has a five year
Council Minutes - 7/12/82
I development phase and a multiple housing area which has a
seven year development phase. Mr. Knutson noted that all
development phases will run concurrently. They noted that
they will be appearing before the Planning Commission on
July 13, 1982 and rather than present -as detailed an explana-
tion to the Council as they will to the Planning Commission,
they were present simply to present their basic idea and to
answer any questions that the Council might have. Mr.
Knutson went on to note that their projected timetable is
largely dependent upon Council decision and action, but that
they are hoping the results of the feasibility study peti-
tion form would warrant sewer and water construction by the
fall of 1982 so that they could commence housing construc-
tion during the construction season of 1983. The Council
acknowledged the receipt of the petition and expressed their
interest in the development project. They noted that no
action can be taken at this time but that it will bs on the
July 26th agenda.
1. Consideration of Change Orders 040, 042 through 049 for the
Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Mr. Gerald Corrick of OSM was present to discuss in detail
all of the change orders before the Council at this time.
Change Order 040 which was tabled at the June 28th meeting
'— was represented. lie stated that there seemed to be a
significant advantage to the installation of a fuel tank
at the treatment site since it would eliminate trucks that
haul sludge from making trips through the center of town.
lie stated that the sludge hauling trucks were extremely
large and that he did not think the Council would favor
those trucks making trips through the center of town to
got ovur to the public works garage. Ile went on to ox -
plain in detail a number of aspects about change orders
42 through 49, many of which were electrical in nature,
one of which involved an emergency telephone oyatem. A
motion was made by White, seconded by Blonigen and carried
unanimously to approve the change ordors 040, 042, 043, 044,
045, 047, 048, and 049. Change order 046 was tabled for
further investigation. Mr. Corrick also presented the
Council with an application for a grant amendment for the
property management system that will be required to be
in,itiatod. lie noted that because the City is receiving a
substantial amount of Federal and State grant funds, a
c onprohonnive inventory system accounting for all property
noodo to be developed. lie noted that in future years, rep-
resentativon from GPA would likely cone to the City to per-
form a property audit and that those management oystems aru
roquirad. A motion was made by Fair, seconded by White and
_ unanimously carried authorising application for the amend-
ment to the grant program.
7 ��r
Council Minutes - 7/12/82
t; J. Consideration of a Letter from the Department of Housing and
Urban Development that an Application for Housing has been
Submitted by Chateau Plaza Incorporated.
Eidem explained to the Council that he had received notice
that Chateau Plaza had submitted an application to HUD for
the construction of 36 elderly apartment units. fie stated
that the letter requested that the City submit any comments
that they may have on the project and he wished to know
whether or not the Council did in fact wish to respond to
the plan. Mayor Grimsmo noted that lie was entirely satis-
fied with the site location that had been chosen. fie
sited instances of at least two other communities that
constructed their elderly horsing in close proximity to
their hospital and nursing hone and felt that this might
be more conducive for Monticello. other members of the
Council were in general agreement that the site currently
designated did not seem to bean ideal site and directed
Eidem to submit a letter stating that the City supported
the project but would like further investigation into the
actual site proposal,
K. Considara,.o.. of a ..alar; .obi^, =i -te.
Eidem reported to the Council that a dispute had arisen
out of apparent misunderstanding relating to call back
pay provisions. He stated the employees wore under the
impression and in fact have been submitting time for a
minimum of two hours when called lack to work during off
duty hours. fie stated that while this apparently had not
boon a problem in the past, there were two recent incidents
whore employees worked less than the two hours but uub-
mitted a claim for two hours under the impression that
they would be paid for a minimum of Lwo hours for being
called back. He reported that he had talked to Mr. Wolf -
stellar and Mr. wieber about this and that while in fact
past practice has been to pay them for two hours, they did
not know that the employees wore not working the two hours;
that in to say, they understood the employees to bu puttiny
In the full amount of time for the hours sulmitted. Eidem
stated that while it is not a written policy, the fact that
It tins been allowed to occur can be construed as accepted
practice and thus cannot be deprived from the employees
until the next contract would be negotiated. Eidem stated
that he wan in favor of establishing a policy that would
provide for a minimum call back pay provision and that he
would like to begin with that now. The Council directed
Eidem to contact Mike O'Connor, the City's labor attorney,
to sea what his Impression was of this.
Council Minutes - 7/12/82
Council Member ;taus stated that he war of the opinion L.Iat
-� certain call back provisions should be designed into a
personnel policy, but that such a policy should be care-
fully monitored and that employees should be notified that
obvious abuses of this system could result in more stringent
enforcement of several regulations. The Council directed
Eidem to pursue this matter at greater length. Mo further
action was taken.
Meeting Adjourned.
Thomas A. Eidem
City Administrator
Council Agenda - July 26, 1982
4. Consideration of a Request to Increase Relief Association Benefits
for the Volunteer Fire Department, (T.E.)
Since the June 29, 1982 meeting, I have again met with certain mem-
bers of the Fire Department to go over the figures that were pre-
sented that night. we discovered that there were some discrepancies,
that I was operating with some incorrect information in terms of who
was and who was not retiring in the upcoming years. Also in the
same discussion, we discovered that the Fire Department was not op-
erating with the correct figures, so the information that you are
being given for this meeting is now correct.
After adjustments, the figures you have are, in fact, closer to the
original figures I gave you rather than the original figures the
Fire Department provided, and they acknowledge this fact. In our
discussion they realize that since the city contribution is, in
fact, closer to the $7,000.00 mark, they realize, or at least the
two members I spoke with, that $700.00 per yea- benefit might be
a little steep. I informed them that my greatest opposition
to increasing relief benefits has to do solely with the necessity
to levy for tax dollars to make up their short fall. I told them
that as long as the state Fire Aid plus their income can generate
enough revenue to meet the accrued liability that what their bene-
fit sum is. is of little concern tome. In essence, they can
raise it as long as they can pay for it themselves. I told them
I would staunchly oppose any increase that would require a city
contribution out of a tax levy. It is my contention that while
a $1,000, $2,500 or whatever, is not a large sum by itself, if
we can trim the budget by a $1,000 per department, we can save
the City anywhere from $10,000 to $25,000 annually. The two mem-
bers of the department that I spoke with realize that that is my
position and that I will be defending that at the meeting. They,
however, have elected to appeal to the Council for some increase.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Deny all requests, leave benefit at $500.00. This action
has boon pretty much summed up in the agenda supplement
that came out for the Juno 28, 1982 meeting.
2. Increase to $600.001 again this requires a tax levy to
meet the extra payment over and above the state aid and
their interest income.
3. Grant increase to $700.00 - also requires the tax levy
to moot excess contribution, only now in the range of
$7,000.00.
4. Request that the association by-laws be rewritten to allow
the association to increase their benefit at their will
but precluding any contribution over and above the 26
Fire Aid into the Relief Association Fund.
- 1 -
Council Agenda - July 26, 1982
RECOMMENDATION: I recommend we go with Alternate R4. This puts the
full responsibility of keeping the fund liquid in the association's
hands. As it stands right now, Statute requires that we contribute
100% of the State aid to the association, so we would not be losing
anything in that respect. By changing the by-laws, whenever they
have enough money, however they generate it, so long as it does not
come from the city operating budget, they can increase their own
benefits. Also, if the by-laws were drafted in such a way, it would
eliminate the firemen having to come before the Council for every
increase that they wished. Their only responsibility would be to
perhaps, submit a financial report showing their solvency or submit
an audit showing that they can accommodate their own benefit in-
crease. For their immediate request, I recommend that the request
be denied and that their by-laws be rewritten to address this issue
by the operating year of 1983.
REFERENCES: Comparative sheets of $500, $600, and $700 benefit
plane, fire department roster indicating years of service.
NOTE: If it is at all possible, I am trying to find a firm with
a computer that will compute all of the accrued liability for the
next ten years; if I am lucky enough to find someone to do this
for me I will try to have the material to you by the meeting Mon-
day night.
- 2 -
FIREMEN'S RELIEF
$500 Per year benefit
A.
Accrued Liability - 12/31/82
- $168,640.00
B.
P.ccrued Liability - 12/31/83
181,690.00
C.
Normal Contribution - (B - A)
13,050.00
D.
Estimated assets in fund - 12/31/82
117,060.72
81Fund. Bal. — 1 payment + 126 int. +
State Aid +
City levy
94,980.11 — 6,250 ) + 10,647.61 +
16,000 +
1,683 3
E.
Fund deficit at 12/31/82 (A -D)
51,579.28
F.
Deficit at 12/31/81
65,684.00
G.
Total 1983 required contribution to fund.
( C + 106 of P + expense)
( 13,050 + 6568.40 + 250.00 )
19,868.40
H.
Estimated State Aid for 1983
17,600.00
I.
Estimated interest income (D X 56)
5,853.04
J.
Assn. Income for 1983 (It + I)
23,453.04
< N.
Surplus revenue to Assn. (J - G) +
3,584.64
$600 Per year benefit
A.
Accrued Liability 12/31/82
202,368.00
B.
Accrued Liability 12/31/83
217,428.00
C.
Normal contribution (B - A) -
15,OGO.00
D.
Estimated assets in fund 12/31/62
117,060.72
(81 Fund Bal. — 1 payment + 126 int. +
State Aid +
City Levy)
( 94,980.11 — $6,250 + 10,647.61 +
16,000 +
1,683 )
E.
Total Fund Deficit 12/31/62 (A - D)
85,307.28
F.
Old Deficit (Based on $500)
50,869.28
G.
New Deficit (F -F) 0
34,438.00
11,
Total 1983 Required Contribution to fund.
( C + 106 of 81 Deficit + 106 of G
+ Expense)
U5,060,00 + 6,568.40 + 3443,80
+ 250.00 1
25,322.20
( 1.
Estimate State Aid for 1983 -
17,600.00
J.
Estimate Interest Incamo (D X 56) -
5,053.04
K.
Total Asan. Income (I + J)
23,453.04
L.
Amount peeAd from other rovonuo (11 - K)
1,869.16
FIREMEN'S RELIEF
$700 per year benefit
A. Accrued Liability 12/31/82 -
236,096.00
B. Accrued liability 12/31/83 -
253,666.00
C. Normal contribution (B - A)
17,570.00
D. Estimated Assets in fund 12/31/82
117,060.72
(81 Fund. Bal — 1 payment + 12% int. + State Aid
+ City Levy)
( 94,980.11 — 6,250 + 10,647.61 + 16,000
+ 1,683 )
E. Fund deficit at 12/31/82 (A - D) a
119,035.28
F. Old Deficit (Based on $500)
50,869.28
G. New Deficit
68,166.00
H. Total 1983 Required Contribution to fund.
( C + 10% of 81 Deficit + 10% of G + Expense)
(17,570 + 6568.40 + 6816.60 + 250 )
31,205.00
I. Estimated State Aid for 1983
16,700.00
J. Estimated interest income (D X 5%) a
5,853.04
K. Tetal Ac-ocietion I^._ ^ c
23.453.04
1
,
L. Amount needed from other reveneue (H — K)
7,751.96
d
Starting Years Service
Date 12/31/82 .
1.
Lee Trunnell
3/46
37
2.
Willard Anderson
3/48
35
3.
Charles Christianson
3/48
35
4.
Gordy Link
3/54
29
5.
Paul Klein
6/58
25
6.
Jin Maurice
6/58
25
7.
George Liefert
5/63
20
8.
Doug Pitt
5/63
20
9.
Donald Dor
6/64
19
10.
Gene Jensen
7/66
16
11.
Dave Ditzer
4/70
13
12.
Dave Kranz
4/70
13
13.
Willard Farnick
6/72
11
14.
William Klein
6/72
11
15.
Ted Farnam
3/71
10
16.
Woody ❑aaland
7/74
9
17.
Marn Flicker
5/75
8
10.
Jay Morrell
5/75
8
19.
Scott Douglas
3/76
7
20.
Wayne Labrce
5/77
6
21.
Tom Link
5/77
6
22.
Mark Wallen
5/77
6
23.
Greg Dahlhoimor
2/78
5
24.
Jerry Wain
12/79
3
25.
M. Johnson
9/80
2
Gi
Council Agenda - July 26, 1982
5. Consideration of Price Quotations for Construction of Freiqht Loading
Dock and walk -In Cooler Expansion. (T. E.)
John Simola and Hark Irmiter should be supplying you with additional
information in this supplement regarding this matter. I have talked
with Hark and there is some concern that we may be unable to get
firm price quotes on the freight loading dock construction, which in
turn would postpone this construction until the next meeting. His
prime concern for now, these being the summer months, is the expansion
of the walk-in cooler. He would like very much, and I concur, that the
walk-in cooler expansion be considered separately if the freight
loading dock prices are not prepared. The walk-in cooler is essential
for the summer operation and to postpone it much longer will take us
through the busiest part of the season when the cooler is most needed.
- 3 -
Council Agenda - July 26, 1982
6. Consideration of Retaininq Wall Aternatives as part of the 7th
Street Improvement. (T.E.).
At the last meeting, you adopted a resolution accepting the bid and
awarding the job to Omann Construction solely for the base bid and
requested that the retaining wall alternatives be reinvestigated
and renegotiated. At the end of the meeting, John Badalich noted
that according to the wording and the contract, we might not be able
to renegotiate these alternatives, but that he would discuss it with
Omann Construction. John did talk with Cmann Construction and they
were more than willing to investigate this kind of an option where
the alternatives would be rebid as separate items, however, in doing
that they were unable to secure prices that were lower than the
prices they had included in their bid. John's letter,contained in
the references, explains in greater detail the efforts that Omann
went through and he further discusses some of the dollar figure.
I see also that John has also gone on record as recommending the
stone wall alternative in spite of the additional cost. Related to
his recommendation of the stone wall, I had cause to be in another
community last week where they had a retaining wall made of land-
scape timber which, although I initially preferred the stone option,
I found the timber to be very very attractive. Shortly after that
I talked with John about how attractive the timber wall was and if he
iadseon that uns. He said i,u had euL, LuL Li,aL Li,u peopusal for our
project is to use good, but used, railroad ties. That,to me, would
not be as attractive as the landscape timbers and using quality
wood, perhaps, would not be as great a savings as using the used
railroad ties.
I had been under the assumption all along that we would be using
landscape timbers and now upon finding out that we are planning
to use used railroad ties, I guess I feel more strongly in favor
of the atone.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONa
A) Select Alternative A - price of $37,980.20 and a stone
retaining wall.
B) Select Alternative e - This would be a project coat of
$31,501.70 with a retaining wall of used railroad ties.
C) Rebid the job - John's letter explains the ramifications
of this in more detail.
RECOMMENDATION, Award the job to include Alternative A.
RFFFRFNCESt A copy of letter from John Badalich, a copy of rasolu-
tion accepting bid and awarding job for Alternative A or B.
-a-
ORR-SCHELEN• MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC_.
Consulting £nyinccrs Division of Kidde Consultants, Inc.
Lund Surveyors
July 19, 1982
Mr. Thomas A. Eidem, Administrator
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MIN 55362
Re: Improvement No. 82-1
7th Street Improvement
OSM Comm. No. 068-3252
Dear Mr. Eidem:
As a follow-up to the action of the City Council on July 12,
1982, 1 contacted the Omann Construction Co. reqardinq their low
bid on the above referenced project and the City Council's award.
On first contact_ last Tuesday, they seemed interested in
accepting the base bid, Street Construction only, provided a
reasonable price could be negotiated with a wall contractor to
see if they could get a lower price for wall construction than
originally bid. I gave him the names of the other bidders, but
tic was unsuccessful in receiving a price lower than his bid of
approximately $12,000 for a stone wall or $6,000 for a timber
wall even though their bids reflected a price considerably less.
As I indicated to the Council on May 12, 1982, the contractors
have a knack for loading up their overhead costs, including
profit, on different parts of a project which makes it difficult
to separate out parts when they know a notal cost is the basis of
an award, as in the case of this project.
Omann Construction can only accept the project, on the Grand Total
Price bid, that is the total base bid plus Alternative A or the
total base bid plus Alternative 8 as noted in the proposal form
for the project and as submitted to the City. if the City
Council feels that a lower price could be received on the wall
construction, we would have to reject all bids and readvertine
separately for the street construction and separately for the
wall conatruction. (lased on Omann's efforts to negotiate a
lesser cost for the wall construction, I would foresee bids for
wall construction equal to or greater than Omann's bid. I also
think that the street construction would be higher if we
readvertised now that bid prices are exposed to all bidders and
in that they range from approximately $26,000 to $37,452.
2021 East If. 4vonrne • Suilo 238 • Minnonpolis, Mil ulLrsa(a 55413
a�t+rser-vnnn ret r•.v• _10.nnnn ( 4 J
Page Two
Mr. Thomas A. Eidem
July 19, 1982
As you may recall, our estimate for this project was $43,690 for
base bid plus Alternative A, and $40,540 for base bid plus Alter-
native B, as compared to the total bid of Omann Construction of
$37,980.20 and $31,501.70 respectively. Enclosed is our computer
printout of the bid tabulation.
Therefore, based on our several conversations with the contrac-
tor, consideration of bids received, ramifications of rejection
of bids and readvertising separate projects, I would recommend
that the City Council award the 82-1 Project to Omann Construc-
tion Company as the lowest responsible bidder for the Grand Total
Base Bid plus Alternative A in the amount $37,980.20. I
expressed my preference as to wall construction at the Council
meeting and feel that the stone wall will provide far greater
long-term service to the City.
Yours very truly,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERUN
?John
SSOCIATES, INC.
P. Engineer
JPB:nlb
Iinclosuree
cc: John Simola, Public Works Director
t -
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAINING WALL
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the improvement of
7th street from Trunk Hwy 25 to Cedar Street, bids were received, opened
and tabulated according to law; and,
W11EREAS, the plans and specifications called for two alternative designs
for retaining walls, those specified as Alternative A, a stone wall and
Alternative B, a timber wall; and
VHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council of Monti-
cello on July 12th, 1982, Oman Construction was awarded the contract
for the improvement of 7th Street from Trunk Ilwy 25 to Cedar Street
with respect to the base bid, excluding retaining wall alternatives; and
WHEREAS, Omann Construction has willingly renegotiated the cost of the
construction of Alternative A, a atone retaining wall, such that the
cost of said wall will be
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
i. -i-no mayor and City Administrator are hcrciry authorized and dirCe Led
to enter into the attached contract with Omann Construction of
Hanover, Minnesota, in the name of the City of Monticello for
the improvements of 7th Street from Trunk Ilwy 25 to Cedar Street
according to the plans and specifications including Alternative A,
therefore, approved by the City Council and on file in the office
of the City Administrator.
Adopted by the City Council this 26th day of July, 1982.
Thomas A. Eidem
City Administrator
Arvo A. Grimmmo
Mayor of Monticallo
Council Agenda - July 26, 1982
7. Resolution Accepting Petition and Authorizinq Preparation of a
Feasibility Report for Sewer and Water to Meadow Oak Subdivision.(T.E.)
At the beginning of the July 12th, 1982 meeting, a petition was pre-
sented that was signed by the owner of the proposed Meadow Oaks
subdivision requesting a feasibility study on the extension of
trunk water and sanitary sewer service to their subdivision. At
that time there was one signature, that being Jiro Boyle, I have now
received the petition for the identical request with both Mr. Boyle
and Mr. Hoglund•s names. This does include 100% of the property
owners involved and it would require the adoption of a resolution
to begin the feasibility report. As you will note in the petition,
if the proposal does not go into construction, then the land owners/
petitioners guarantee payment for all costs incurred for the prepara-
tion of the report, so we will have no expense at that time. If the
project does go to construction, then of course the cost of feasibility
is an assessible cost, so we will also be reimbursed for the expense
that we incur at this time. The feasibility study is the first step
to commencing any project and the possession of the petition simply
gives us the support of the property owners involved, plus the guarantee
that we will be reimbursed for any expense of the project if it does
not go to construction.
RECUMMEMUBU ACr1VN: Adopt the enclosed resolution and authorize Lim
feasibility study.
- 5 -
RESOLUTION DECLARING ADEQUANCY OF PETITION AND ORrMRING
PREPARATION OF REPORT FOR MF.ADUW OAK SUBDIVISION
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA:
1. A certain petition requesting the extension of trunk sanitary
sewer and water lines to proposed Meadow Oak Subdivision was
filed with the Council on July 12th, 1982 and is hereby de-
clared to be signed by the required percentage of owners of
property affected thereby.
2. The petition is hereby referred to Mr. John Badalich of OSM
and he is instructed to report to the Council with all con-
venient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as
to whether the proposed improvement is feasible, and as to
whether it should beat be made as proposed or in connection
with some other improvement, and the estimated cost of the
improvement as recommended.
Adopted by the Council this 26th day of July, 1982.
Thomas A. Eidom
City Administrator
Arve A. Grimamo
Mayor of Monticello
D
FOR CITY USE ONLY
f Petition 0
` Date Received -'/1
PETITION /
Presented to Council
LOCA TION/SUBDIVISION Meadow Oaks
We, the undersigned, owners of the real property within Meadow Oaks'
Subdivision, hereby petition for:
Trunk Water and Sanitary Sewer Service
We understand that this petition does not in itself request the installation of
these improvements, but rather, request the preparation of a feasibility report
in which the estimated costs of these improvements will be tabulated. We
understand that upon receipt of this petition and the preparation of the
requested feasibility report, a public hearing will be held at which time we
may voice our support or opposition based on the costs as prepared in said
feasibility report.
If the requested improvements are denied for construction at the time of public
hearing, we hereby guarantee payment for all costs incurred in the preparation
of Luis f easibiiity report and any other related costs.
Sign re of Land Owner Address of Property
� d -S
2.
3. Y6
4.
5.
6.
7.
a.
9.
10.
Council Agenda - July 26, 1982
B. Resolution Accepting bid and Awardinq Contract for Seal Coating of
City Streets. (T.E.)
There is little information that I can give you at this time on
this matter since the bids will not be opened until after this
has already been sent out to you. John Simola will be tabulat-
ing the bids and be presenting them to you at the meeting. If,
in your opinion, you think it would be best have a longer period
of time to review all of the bids, you may simply table the matter
to be addressed at the first meeting in August.
REFERENCES: A copy of resolution accepting bid and awarding con-
tract for seal coating.
- 6 -
SEAL COATING 82 -SC -1
Allied Blacktop of Maple Grove, Minnesota was the low bidder
on the Beal coating for $.337 per square yard including
sweeping for a total of $21,668.43 (64,298 square yards).
The contractor will sweep for 4C per square yard which is
below our costs. I recommend that the contract be awarded
to Allied.
I further recommend that we take advantage of the prices to
complete the area outlined in the previous outline and
Praire Road which was omitted last year due to unfinished
patching. The total additional would be 16,507 square yards
of $5,562.8G, making the total job 80,805 square yards at
$27,231.29. This is approximately $1,000 less than the
comprehensive maintenance amount of $28,200. I have veri-
fied the extra amount with the contractor and he found it
acceptable.
John Simola
Public works Director.
BID TABULATION
FOR
SEAL COATING PROJECT 132 -SC -1
FOR
THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINN.
BASE BID
ALTERNATE 01
CONTRACTOR
w/SWEEPING
w/o SWEEPING
1.
Mr. Melvin L. Alama
.44C sq. yd.
.40C sq. yd.
$28,291.12
$25,719.20
-.
Ili -Way Surfacing Co.
3.
Dustcoating, Inc.
r
4.
Batxor Const. Co., Inc.
.349C sq. yd.
.309C sq. yd.
$22,440.00
$19,866.08
5.
Elk River Bituminous
38C sq. yd.
.365C eq. yd.
G.
Buffalo Bituminous
$24,433.24
$23,466.77
7.
Allied Blacktop
•337 eq. yd.
.297C sq. yd.
$21,668.43
$19,096.51
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID A14D AWARDING CONTRACT
FOR THE SEAL COATING OF CITY STREETS
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the seal coating of
city streets, bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law,
and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement:
AND WHEREAS, it appears that
is the lowest responsible bidder.
NOW WEREFORE, DE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA:
1. The Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized and directed
to enter into the attached contract with
in the name of the City of Monticello for the
seal coating of city streets according to the plans and specifi-
cations therefore approved by the City Council and on file in the
office of the City Administrator.
2. The City Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to return
forthwith to all bidders, the deposits made with their bids, except
that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bid -
dor shall be retained until the contract ties boon signed.
Adoptod by the City Council of Monticello, Minnesota this 26th day of July, 1982.
Arvo A. Grimamo
Mayor of Monticello
Thomas A. Eidom
City Administrator U
Council Agenda - July 26, 1982
Consideration of a Request to Extend a variance Granted to Trinity
Lutheran Church. (L.K.l
In 1979, Trinity Lutheran Church built a new addition to their
facility. At the time of the building of that now addition, there
was a requirement that hard surfaced parking be required to facili-
tate that new addition. At the time the addition was built, a rep-
resentative from the Trinity Lutheran Church requested that they
not be required to put in any hard surfaced parking at all at that
time, but be allowed up to three years before any hard surfacing
would have to be installed. At that meeting on May 29, 1979, a
motion was made and granted that Trinity Lutheran Church be given
a three year period before any hard surfacing be required on their
parking lots.
At this time, Trinity Wtheran is requesting a further extension
of that hard surfacing requirement for their parking lot. A rep-
resentative or representatives from Trinity Lutheran Church will
be at Monday night's meeting to discuss this extension of the
variance request with the Council.
APPLICANT: Trinity Lutheran Church
CONSIDERATION: Consider recommending approval or denial of this
variance extension ruquust.
REFERENCES: An enclosed map depicting the location of the Trinity
Lutheran Church parking lot, the agenda supplement and council
minutes from the meeting of the City Council held on May 29, 1979.
- 7 -
.01
dC'
4w
..f f
ii
U 3. Public Hearinq on Consideration of a Variance Request from Hardsurfaced —
Parkinq Area - Trinity Lutheran Church.
Last Fall, the Trinity Lutheran Church requested variances that will allow
them to have approximately only one-half of the necessary parking lot hard -
surfaced with the balance being in grass. As you recall, this variance was
approved by the City at that time with the understanding that the area sur-
faced only with grass would be reviewed.
Since that time, the Church has gone through the bid -letting process on their
addition, and the bids have come in at approximately $30,000 more than their
lender will allow them to spend. As a result, the Church is requesting that
they not be required to put in any of the hardsurfaced parking at this time,
but be allowed up to three years before any hardsurfaced parking would have
to be installed.
At the Planning Commission's meeting, a motion was made and unanimsouly carried
to recommend approval of the variance request with the understanding that
the area be hardsurfaced within three years.
Council Agenda - 5/29/79
There is some concern for the precedent that this type of variance might
set since the City has been quite stringent in not deviating from parking
requirements and already has given the Church a variance on half of its
parking area to have it grass. As an example, a variance request will
probably be brought to the City relative to the Tom Thumb Superatte, which
i6 '::yuuet i,ig o vaclaaca V' ,:y ri:nu UU..Lypu ur uuru 1-1.ur that tLuy aw
providing. Additionally, there is some concern to justify a variance request
based on the financial situation as this could certainly be requested by
any firm or organization when it comes to meeting some of the City's
criteria relative to parking, etc. However, I believe there is also acme
consideration that might be given the Church in light of the fact that it
Is an existing use and the parking that is being provided, although it
may not be hardsurfaced, is more than the existing parking now provides.
POSSIBLE ACTION,• Consideration o approval r denial of variance request.
REFERENCES, 5/15/79 Planning Commission Minutes - Item 5.
J
/ Council Minutes - May 29, 1979 1
•ublie hearing to Consider of\Variance to Allow an Apart.mont/Commr_reial
Use within a B-4 Zone - Fred Topel.
Mr. Fred Topel, owner of the Mini -Mall complex in Downtown Monticello,
requested a variance to add a 2,600 square foot second story apartment to
his property which is currently zoned 0-4. The addition of the 2,600 sq. It
apartment would only be for Mr. Topel's personal residence and would provide
more security for their antique business they house in the building.
Some of the concerns in allowing an apartment in a commercial zone were
discussed by the Council, including the additional parking that would be
required by the presence of a residence. It was noted that Mr. Topel
would have room in the rear of his building to set aside a parking spot
rescrved for the apartment complex, but that this may also cake away from
Liw p,ukiny uy u.. u.iunts for Lire I•iiui-'riaii ane,., s..s. A :.uyjc;L!u wus
made Lhat since Mr. Topol will have quite aaalarge apartment complex,
pus::ibly some of the antiques could be stored in the new residence and
thereby Mr. Topel could remove his old storage shed which is located on
the rear of his property to provide parking spaces for the residence.
A motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Phil White and unanimously
cairicd to approve a variance to allow Mr. Topel to build a second story
addition for his residence provided he would agree. Lo remove the older
shed which is located on the rear of his property and use this space
far his,-T-nnal gnagn fnr hiv nnrnnnnl I•nr41n.j r,••hti r••mnn Yr:,
.•ublic Ilearin9 on Consideration of Variance Request from llardsurfnced
I'.ukinq Area - Trinity Lutheran Church.
I—a Fall, the Trinity Lutheran Church requested variances to allow them
t.o have approximately one-half of their necessary parking lot hardaurfaced
with the balance being in grass. Thin variance was approved by the City
at LIM L time with the understanding that the arca surfaced only with
would Ix: reviewed at a future date.
Since that time, the Church has gone through the bid -letting process on
Choir new addition, and the bids have come in at approximately $30,000
more than their lender will allow them to spend. As a result, the Church
topresuntativc, Mr. Don Nagle, requested that they not be required to put
in any hardsurfaced parking at all at this time, but be allowed up to
three years before any hardaurfacod parking would have Lo be installed.
Motion was made by Ken Maus, seconded by Dan Blonigen and unanimously
carried to grant the Trinity Lutheran Church a three-year variance on
;,ny hardsurfaced parking requirements for tho Trinity Lutheran Church
Public Ilcarinq to Consider Setback Variance Request - ,lames Fuller..
Mr. Fuller rcqucated a variance of 3'3" to build a 2U' addition to thu
east side of his home at B00 West Broadway. Since thin lot is a corner
•ot, Lho normal outback from the east property line which abuts film Strout
uuld be 20' and the proposed addition would be 16.9' from the Elm Street
tighL-ol -way, licaring no opposition, motion was made by Phil White,
r.ccunded by Fran Fair and unanimously carried to approve the 3'3" variance
to Mr. James fuller for Ills n'elit.ion. O
Council Agenda - July 26, 1982
10. Consideration of a Request by Marvin Georqe to Defer Special Assess-
ments. (L.K.).
Approximately two years ago the City Council adopted a policy whereby,
concerned subdivisions where the five year assessment pay back is
applicable, it was necessary at the time a building permit was taken,
that an agreement be signed between the applicant for the building
permit and the City which stated that within 180 days or at the time
of the occupancy of the building that the assessments must be paid in
full against that parcel of land. So far, with one exception, that
policy has worked quite well and assessments have been paid when due.
However, at thin time, Marvin George Builders, who have developed
several new homes in the Country Club Estates, are over their IBO day
limit for paying those assessments which are due on 4 of the new
homes which are presently built in Country Club Manor. Because of
this, the Building Inspector has refused any further building permits
to Marvin George Builders until such time as they can work out some
arrangements with the City Council to have a variance from that policy
whereby those assessments must be paid within 180 days of the build-
ing permit.
Mr. Marvin George will most likely be present at Monday night's meet-
ing to discuss this situation witil tiw Cv%uwil.
11. Consideration of a Proposal for City Council and Planning Commission
t0 Moot in a Joint Session,
COUNCIL MEMBERSt See Council update for this item.
12. Consideration of ApproVal for a One Day 3.2 Boor Licanoo for St.
Henrv'O Fall Fostival on September 19, 1982.
8 -
Phones
RVIN
i
Ar389.3n
EORGEA�fL
th
South of
812-389.32(}1
Printetan
Mi
6i2332�3D3A
R `,/�
• `��
UILVERar INC. _
n, 55371
-332-303
on
on Hwy. 169
Hwy. 16
"EAST CENTRAL MINNESOTA'S LARGEST BUILDER"
July 19, 1982
Tom Eidem
City Administrator
City of Monticello
254 East Broadway
Monticello, MN. 55362
Dear Mr. Eidem:
I am requesting to be put on the agenda of the City Council
meeting to be held July 26, 1982. This request is to discuss
the payment policy on the assessments for new construction.
1 would like to request that the payment be made at the time
Of GCCvHanCy all the housing industry is very slow and it Some-
times takes a year or more to sell a house.
If you have any questions please give me a call.
Sincerely,
Marvin George
MG: c]g
Council Agenda - July 26, 1982
13. Rezoning Request - Rosewood Corporation. (L.F,_l
Rosewood Corporation has made a request for rezoning a portion of the
property which they now own which is west-northwest of the Monticello
Mall. The rezoning request is based on the possible sale of a portion
of their property to the Chateau Plaza Corporation which proposes to
build a 36 unit apartment complex for the elderly. Mr. Rekstad would
like rezoning approved contingent upon approval of the apartment
project by the Rousing and Urban Development (HUD) giving their approval
for guaranteeing the project. Mr. Rekstad has stated that if approval
is granted and the project goes forward that the Rosewood Corporation
would be willing to work with the City in developing a route for a
Collector Read across the balance of their property in order to provide
access to the project property when the development occurs.
The Chateau Plaza Corporation is the organization of people who plan
to build the Chateau Plaza apartment complex. Though many of the
members of the Chateau Plaza Corporation are either associated with
or work for the hospital district, there is a distinct corporate
difference in the two, in so much as the Chateau Plaza has nothing
to do physically or financially with the hospital district.
This parcel of land wan selectell fnr the development of the 36 unit
apartment complex because of its location to such facilities as the
mall, library and the central and mall business districts, etc.
This item was recommended unanimously by the Planning Commission for
approval contingent upon HUD approval of the project being finally
developed and Rosewood Corporation being able to provide property for
the continuation of the 7th Street access road from the intersection
of 7th and walnut Streets westward to Minnesota Street as proposed by
the City Engineer and his proposed alternate Collector Route 2 A.
APPLiCANTz Rosewood Corporation.
CONSIDERATION: Considering recommending approval or denial of this
rezoning request and also consider the contingencies as stated.
REFERENCES: An enclosed map depicting the aroa of the property
involved and also a map depicting the proposed altornato route 2A
for a Collection Road.
- 9 -
.j
Z
Z
2
la ,
S
`
ORR SCHE
9 '
& &SSV
IITERNATIVE C
`
ROAD AI,GNMEr
Jfj*
4
rt
P'sotr4 IWO
Trem U.1 to MS.
ave'ttl'al
MQAO
TO:
Council Memlxrs
FROM:
Loren Klein
DATE:
July 26, 1982
SUBJECT:
Reference 013 for the July 26, 1982 Council agenda.
This map should replace the one referenced for Item 013. The one in-
cluded in the agenda shows Route 02 being proposed, and Route 02A
should be shown.
On this new cap, the arca in pink is where the proposed "Chateau. Plaza"
is to be developed.
Ridgemount Apartments ie shown in dark blue and the total Rosewood
property is outlined in yellow with the mall being approximately
where USM is enwn in the lower right hand corner and IJIU rundway
that Rosewood should provide to the City from other sources is
shown in green, which would connect Minnesota Street, and the inter-
section of walnut and Seventh Streets.
Council Agenda - July 26, 1982
14. ordinance Amendment for a Go -Kart Track. (L.K.�
Mr. Jim Teslow of Monticello proposed a go-kart track for his property
which lies on the west end of Elm Street where Elm Street abuts the
north side of 1-94. This property is zoned B-3. As a result of Mr.
Teslow's request to build a go-kart track, it is necessary to amend
Monticello's ordinances to make provisions for a go-kart track in
some zoning district since they are not allowed anywhere in Monticello
at the present time. John Uban of Howard Dahlgren Associates proposed
the following amendment to allow go-kart tracks within a B-3 zone as
a conditional use:
Section 10-3-4 (M) Outdoor go-kart tracks provided that:
1. The proposed use must meet all conditions of Sec-
tion 10-3-4 (A).
2. The conditional use permit will be reviewed yearly
to determine whether or not it is compatible with
neighboring properties and in conformance with con-
ditions of the conditional use.
3. A solid wood, six foot high fence must be part of
the screening required when the adjacent property is
residential.
4. For dust and noise (70DB at residential property line)
must be controlled at all timeo to the satisfaction of
the City.
This item was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission for roc-
cemnondation to provide an ordinance amendment maintaining a provision
whereby go-kart tracks could be allowed within a B-3 zone as a con-
ditional use.
- 10 -
Council Agenda - July 26, 1982
15, Conditional Use - Jim Toslow. (L.K.)
In reference to the previous item, Mr. Jim Teslow has made a request
for a conditional use to be allowed to develop a go-kart track. Mr.
Teslow is aware of the proposed ordinance amendment regarding go-kart
tracks and has agreed that it would not cause him any problem for the
development of his go-kart track. However, Mr. Teslow would appreciate
the Council granting a conditional use for three years for the first
time and reviewed annually thereafter rather than being granted for one
year periods at a time.
John Uban of Howard Dahlgren and Associates has recommended that the
Council consider granting this conditional use to Mr. Teslow since
it is his feeling that rather than having the land lie idle while a
higher and better use is proposed for development, it would give the
property owner an opportunity to provide income from that property.
At the public hearing, no one was present to oppose the conditional
use to Mr. Teslow, although a letter was received from Mrs. Elrano
Brennan objecting to the conditional use because she felt it would have
an adverse effect on her property which is zoned R-3 which is over 500
feet away from the property Mr. Teslow is asking for a conditional use.
Mrs. Tim Genung was present and supported Mr. Teslow•s conditional use
request. (Mrs. Genung is the immediate residential neighbor to Mr.
Toslow's property and her proporty is zoned B-3). Unanimous approval
was given by the Planning Commission to grant t -he .,6e
request to Mr. Toslow with a stipulation that annual review should be
conducted instead of Mr. Teslow'a requested three year review and
thereafter.
APPLICANT: James Tealow.
CONSIDERATION: Consider approving or denying this conditional use
request .
REF ERF.NCES: A map depicting the area of tho Toslow property.
f #Amp
q
Conditional Uco for Go -Kart Track
Jamen Toslow
Council Agenda - July 26, 1982
16. Ordinance Amendment for a Planned Unit Development. (L. K.)
During 1981, the Planning Commission recommended for adoption a
new Planned Unit Development ordinance which was subsequently
adopted by the City Council. However, the City Planner brought
to the Planning Commission's attention shortcomings with the new
Planned Unit Developanent ordinance and recommended that the Plan-
ning Commission suggest to the Council through a Public Hearing
that the City return to its original Planned Unit Development
ordinance.
As a result of the City Planner's recommendation to return to the
old Planned Unit Development ordinance and the comments and review
in comparison of the new ordinance to the old ordinance, a motion
was made and seconded and unanimously passed to recommend to the
City Council that the City abate the present new Planned Unit
Development ordinance and adopt the old Planned Unit Development
ordinance which was used in the past.
CONSIDERATION: Consider abating the Planned Unit Development or-
dinance now in effect and returning to the previous Planned Unit
Development ordinance.
REFERENCES: An enclosed letter from John Uhan of Howard Dahlgren
r.ssociates pointing out the shortcomings of the existing Planned
Unit Development ordinance.
- 12 -
HOWARD DAHLGREN ASSOCIATES
• �•co4roP.no
• • CONSULTING PLANNERS
ONE GPOVELAND TcnnnCc
,.T INNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 66403
ue nras o•
14 June 1982
Loren: Klein
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, Minnesota 55762
RE: PUD ORDINANCE
Door Loren:
In reviewing your newly adopted PUD Ordinance revision, I would
recommend that you return to your original PUD Ordinance. In the
attempt to shorten or streamline the Ordinance, many details of the
planning process were overlooked resulting in an Ordinance that is
arbitrary and may be open to vast differences of interpretation.
;Lv .........I,y :.Lo bt:mu axamp:cs cf the :...,,.......:I,yi:
1. Density should be controlled by land use designation in
the Comprehensive Plan not by adding 25♦ to the existing
zoning.
2. The Ordinance should encourage professional design not
merely a plat by a surveyor.
3. Proof of ownership should be included at all stages of
approval as well as a legal description for public
hearings.
4. Two dere minimum size for a PUD is veay small which weans
there might not be enough room for flexibility in the
deslyn. (Five acres would Iw a more, seasonable minimum.)
5. Since the process of a PUD is complicated, many of the
details should be expressed in the ordinance and nut
assumed at the discretion of the Plmnninal CommibNlnn or
City Council. Many misunderstandings can come floe a trw
vague ordinance.
tet_ -
Loren Klein
City of Monticallo Page 2
There are many other items that do not seem clear in the revised
ordinance which could allow some ill prepared plans through the process.
It would be best to readopt the old ordinance to ensure an orderly
and well -though out development. Should there be a desire to simplify
the ordinance then this should be done with some care and study so as
not to dillute the control and quality of the PUD process.
Sincerely,
�'6/0(%f Uu
C. John Uban
Landscape Arch it cct/Planner
/6
Council Agenda - July 26, 1982
17. ouarterly Department Head Reports. (T.E.)
These reports, I find, are normally given to the Council at the first
meeting of the month in the first month of the new quarter. That was
simply an oversight on my part which is why it is at the second meet-
ing of this month. There is some question since Rick was on vacation
whether or not we can have a complete financial report for the first
half of the year for the Liquor Store so Mark has consented to come
to another meeting as soon as the complete financial statement is
prepared, since that is a necessary part of the discussion on liquor
and operations. Mark, of course, will be present to talk about the
loading dock and the walk-in cooler so if you have specific questions
for him, he said he will be happy to handle them at that time.
The other departments i have listed, I have not seen their reports
and do not know to what extent they will be prepared to submit data
to you. Under the administration department, I intend to simply
brief you on the sorts of activities I have been doing and how I
feel I am adjusting to the position. I also hope to update you on
those activities I see as taking a large part of my time in the
coming three months.
The department heads to be at the meeting are as follows:
✓public Works Department
John Simola
-faw Enforcement
Buddy Gay
(Senior Citizens
Karen Hansen
tYYMCA Detached Worker
Mike Mclstad
,/planning 5 'Zoning
Wren Klein
Administration
Tran Eidem
-Piro Department
Willard Farnick
- 13 -
'T
GENERAL FUND - JULY - 1982 AMOUNT CHECK NO.
Wright County Treasurer - R. E. taxes on Alone Society - reimb.
1,969.28
15946
by N. S. P.
Utilities Service - Manhole repair - Brdwy. b Pine _
6,250.00
15947
G:rald Hermes - Janitorial services at Library
115.00
15948
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll deductions
135.04
15949
Charles Walters - Mileage - 14 hre. @ 25C
3.50
15950
Bob Boedigheimer - Summer help
153.60
15951
Kelly King - 1.
117.60
15952
Amanda Chowen - 1.
46.90
15953
Charles Malachek - " 1.
53.60
15954
Kearin's Landscaping 6 Lawn - Dirt, sod, etc. at Library
981.30
15955
Thomas Eidem - Mileage to BNRR petitions b Mgrs. meeting
43.84
15956
Business Education Division - Reg. form for seminar for Tom E.
150.00
15957
James Preusse - Cleaning city hall
220.00
15958
MN. State Treasurer - Pers W/H
2,503.15
15959
St. Treasurer - Monthly FICA - June
4,406.32
15960
Wright County State Bank - FWT - June
4,436.50
15961
Arve Grimsmo - Mayor salary
125.00
15962
Dan Blonigen - Council salary
100.00
15963
Mrs. Fran Fair -
100.00
15964
Ken Maus -
100.00
15965
Dr. Phil White -
100.00
15966
YMCA of Mpls. - Monthly contract payment
258.33
15967
Corrow Sanitation - Contract payment
3,672.00
15968
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees
205.00
15969
Wright County State Bank - Investments
342,804.11
15970
Gwen Batwmau - Animal Imp. expense
608.07
15971
U. S. Postmaster - Postage
191.00
15972
MN. State Bldg. Service - Plan review for Hillside Terrace Apts.
844.45
15973
Int. Conf. of Bldg. Officials - Membership dues for L. Klein
60.00
15974
Mrs. Lucy Andrews - Inf. Center salary
130.50
15975
Mrs. Ed Schaffer - "1.
90.00
15976
Figs It Shop - Stereo for library
219.95
15977
N. S. Power - Utilities
325.36
15978
Maus Foods, Inc. - Library supplies
7.68
15979
Coast to Coast - Mdse. for library
130.14
15980
Independent Lumber - Library supplies
606.61
15981
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg, foam
145.00
15982
Paul A. Laurence Co. -Payment 017 - WWTP
39,746.10
15983
State of MN. - 3 St, register binders
19.00
15984
MN. Public Employer Labor Relations Assoc, - Workshop for Tom E.
55.00
15985
State Capital Credit Union - Payroll ded.
130.04
15986
Supt. of Documents - 1980 census report
4.50
15987
VOID
0
15988
VOID
0
15989
VOID
0
15990
VOID
0
15991
Charles Walters - 9 miles mileage 0 25C
2.25
15992
Amanda Chowen - Summar help
26.80
15993
Charles Malachsk - Summer help
26,80
15994
Robert Boadigheimer - Summer help
98.40
15995
Kelly King - Sumer help
84.40
15996
MM. State Treasurer - Dap. Reg. fees
50.50
15997
Gerald Hermes - Janitorial services
189.00
15998
C/D
-- t
GENERAL FUND AMOUNT CHECK 110
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded.
5.00
15''-^
VOID
0
16
Band Boosters - Donation to band for Pasadena -
1,100.00
16001
Monticello Fire Dept. - Payroll 6/23 to 7/12
1,087.00
16002
Wright County State Bank - Daily interest
80,000.00
16003
Petty Cash - Reimb. petty cash fund
38.50
16004
Wright County State Bank - Investments
281,056.33
16005
Security Federal Savings b Loan - Investments
20,000.00
16006
OSM - Eng. fees for WWTP
18,179.86
16007
Internal Revenue Service Center - Add'l. Fed. tax return
14.39
16008
Banker's Life ins. - Group Ins.
2,465.44
16009
Phillips Petro. - Oil
14,24
16010
Mr. Ansel Aydt - Stump removal
68.00
16011
Foster Franzen Agency - Add'l. premium - Inst. policy
795.00
16012
Tom Eidem - Misc. mileage
25.50
16013
!tick 4:olfsteller - Misc. mileage
21.00
16014
Wrightco Products - Reimb. for '82 special assessments on tax
289.26
16015
statement error
Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone
739. 19
16016
Centra Soto - Twine
3.50
16017
National Bushing - Street supplies
8.79
16018
Olson Electric - C. D.sirens, circuit board for Fire Dept., etc.
191.36
16019
MN. Petroleum Services - Gas pump for WWTP
525.00
16020
Davidson Electric - Fan for sever dept.
62.81
16021
Davis Electronic - 4 pager repairs for Fire Dept.
94.36
16022
Feed Rite Controls - Sever and water supplies
2,714,11
!.6021
Ben Franklin - Mun. Bldg. supplies
14.50
16C
Wright County Auditor - >f police fines - June
694.00
160'e
Lawton Printing - Index tabs - Bldg. Official
4,95
16026
Dorn Conmtunications - Subscription
18.00
16027
Neenah Foundry - Manhole castings
255.86
16028
MN. Valley Testing - Soil testing
465.60
16029
Class Hut - Class repair - Mtce. Bldg.
257.50
16030
VOID
0
16031
Garelick Steel - Misc. steel for St. Dept.
122.00
16032
Conway Fire 6 Safety -Hydrant wrench
34.65
16033
MN. Fire, Inc. - 4" butterfly valve - Fire Dept.
375.91
16034
Baroness Drug - Film -Sewer Dept.
18,78
16035
Maus Foods - Supplies for Sever, Park, Animal, Mun. Bldg.
118.70
16036
Our Own Hardware - St., Sewer, Water and Park Depts.
377,87
16037
Central McGowan - Cyl.rental
2.48
16038
Water Products - 3 - IV meters
864.60
16039
Barton Sand h Gravel - Sand for Ellison Park project
79.38
16040
Coast to Coast - St., Park, Animal, Tree Depts. supplies
212.33
16041
Loren Klein - Mileage 6/25 - 7/21
117.03
16042
N. S. Power - Utilities
4,223.72
16043
Miller Davis - Liquor license forms
9.59
16044
Monticello Office Products - Library 6 Cen. supplies
167,49
1 6U4 5
VOID
0
16046
Poraian's Office Products - 4 cassetta tapes
24,00
16047
Leef Bros. - Uniforms - St. Dept.
104.40
16048
North Star Waterworks - 12 meters, parts for toilet in garage
740.18
160'
Braun Engineering - Testing at WWTP
140.98
160.
Century Laboratorice, Inc. - Deodorant blocks 6 dispensers - St.
78.55
16051
liquitable Life Ino. - W/11 Ina.
40.00
16052
Wilhelm's Tree Service - Tree removal - Ellison Park
300,00
16053
Local 049 - Union dues
84.00
16054
GENERAL FUND
AMOUNT
CHECK NO
Audio Communications - Radio repair - Fire Dept.
14.00
16055
Independent Lumber - Library expense
70.82
16056
Mrs. Lucy Andrews - Inf. Center salary
103.50
16057
Mrs. Ed Schaffer - Inf. Center salary
117.00
16058
Monticello Times - Misc. publishing
617.93
16059
Gruys, Johnson 6 Assoc. - Computer processing
595.00
16060
Hudson Mfg. Co. - 4 sprayers - bak-pok - Fire Dept.
303.36
16061
Northwestern Bell - Fire phone
25.33
16062
Earl F. Andersen d Assoc. - Misc. signs
127.62
16063
North Central Public Service - Utilities
71.62
16064
American Linen Supply - 5 cases - toilet tissue
171.50
16065
Mr. Michael O'Connor - Union neg. legal fees
441.00
IbObb
1st Bank of Mpla. - Safekeeping fee - securities
4.00
16067
Mr. Al Nelson - Sub.
11.70
16068
Wright County Sheriff - May and June police contracts
14,698.66
16069
Howard Dahlgren Assoc.- Planning fees for June
778.14
16070
Chapin Publishing Co. - Adv. for bids - St. Const.
32.49
16071
Fortune - Subscription
32.95
16072
Lindberg b Sons - faint for parks
24.64
16073
lot Bank of Mpls. - 75 G. 0. 6 Mtce. Bldg. bonds interest
20,239.90
16074
Fidelity Bank 8 Trust Co. - 71 Water Rev. 6 G. 0. bonds - interes,
2,914.22
16075
lot Bank of St. Paul - 78 G. O. bond - interest
29,086.90
16076
Northwestern National Bank of Mpls. - Interest on 81 G. 0., 81
193,774.65
16077
Library, 80 G. 0., 79 G. 0., 77 G. 0., 76 G. 0. bonds
Conunissioner of Revenue - SWT - June
1,997.80
16078
Ca.-.inzionc cf Rc,...nuc - 1112tcr excise tax - 2nd Qtr.
!L-079
Payroll for June
TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS - JULY
23,711.73
51,122,390.55
LIQUOR FUND
JULY DISBURSEKE14TS - LIQUOR FUND - 1982
Banker's Life Ins. - Group Ins.
MN. State Treasurer - PERA payment
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded.- Mark 1.
MN. State Treasurer - PERA payment
St. Treasurer - Social Sec. Contr. Fund - Monthly FICA - June
Wright County State Bank - FWT - June
Twin City Wine - Liquor
Griggs, Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor
Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor
Old Peoria Co. - Liquor
Twin City Wine Co. - Liquor
Midwest Wine Co. - Wine
State Capitol Credit Unicn - Payroll ded. - Mark 1.
Coast to Coast - Sprinkler parts
Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone
Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor
Criggs, Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor
Twin City Wine - Liquor
Liefert Trucking - Freight
let National Bank of Mpls. - Interest on '76 Bond
Northern States Power - Utilities
I'ersinn's Office Products - ReCister rennir
MN. Unemp. Cont. Fund - Unemployment for Scott Van Lith
City of Monticello - Add'1. prem. on Inst, policy
Lovegren Ice - Purchase of ice
Yonak Sanitation - Contract payment
Day Dist. Co, - Beer
Grosslein Beverage Co. - Beer
Janna Refrigeration - Roller shelves for cooler
A. J. Ogle - Beer
Dahlheimer Dist. Co. - Beer
'I'horpe Dist. Co. - Beer
Monticello Times - Adv.
Greys, Johnson 6 Assoc. - May computer fees
Dick Beverage - Beer
North Central Public Service - Utilities
Jude Candy 6 Tobacco - Misc, mdse.
7 Up Bottling Co. - Misc, mdse.
Viking Coca Colo - Misc. mdse.
0111 Uatch Foods - Misc. mdse.
Banker's Life Ins. - Croup Ins.
Fuster Franzen Agency - Add'1. premium - Inst, policy
Monticello Office Products - Mise.office supplies
4uneni� i ner of Revenue - SWT - June
Iayro{� �or June
TOTAL DISNURSEMENTS - JULY
AMOUNT
277.12
263.47
20.00
178.77
623.80
647.60
368.03
3,697.82
6,172.27
1,435.00
1,280.33
841.10
20.00
31.77
51.51
8,436.55
4,123.36
1.658.54
229.33
3,475.00
589.37
77,75
425.3U
7,192.00
395.55
69.00
117.50
21,743.10
747.32
119.50
7,096.18
6.510.40
163.30
110.00
2,316.80
8.14
607.72
473.40
728.10
205.90
277.12
808.00
27.75
256.90
5,141.43
$89,988.40
ce �
1
DARRELL L. WOLFF
c—ty Sh-fH
Honorable Mayor
City Council
Monticello, Minn. 55362
Dear Council:
SNOWS -OFFICE
oewv a — tFi/A ieelb
BUFFALO. NUUM TA:uta
Nowea wseaer am Me. 662.3600
roe nee 1404262.260
6:0o a�. • 4:so o.m.
16
Jame F. Poww% Chief OeFu1V
24 Imo tmeo.u7 rebpaonn
80#610 6631162
ae.e- 67346"
sanwurh, 2662622
mesa 972.2924
Coke:o 28646454
A.—M. 2742076
July 20, 1982
Enclosed is the Sheriff's lav Enforcement report for the south of June, 1962. 544 hours
of patrol service were contracted for during the period in which the following activities
were tallied:
1 - Simple assault - cleared by mediation
2 - Criminal sexual conduct - cleared
1 - Criminal damage to property - window in vehicle broken by BB gun
1 - Report of an exposer at Meilenald:
- Criminal damage to property 6 theft - damaged a LISP truck and stole a chainsaw,
binoculars and miscellaneous items from inside of truck - under investigation
1 - Theft of gas from bus at the D 6 D Bus Company garage
i - Aggravated assault - cleared by arrest
I - Criminal damage to property - vehicle backed into another vehicle - cleared by mediation
2 - Thefts of oil 6 gas from Freeway Standard
I - Criminal damage to property - windshield to vehicle broken
Burglary at Best In Webb - cash missing - under investigation
- Burglary at Independent Lumber - small amount of change taken - under Investigation
- Burglary at Hoglund's Bus Company - cash 6 TV -Radio combination 6 tape recorder taken
- Criminal damage to property - vending machines damaged
- Criminal damage to property 6 theft - window in vehicle saashad out 6 purse taken from inside
• Theft of flag from Bridge Water Telephone Company
Theft of stainless steel conveyor frame from Wrightco Products
No pay customer at Holiday Station
- Criminal damage to property - roof vent cover removed - cleared by arrest
Attempted Burglaries at Joyner Lanes 6 the Roller Rink - no entry gained
I Burglary at the High School - cleared by arrest
I - Forgery at Wayne's Red Owl - under investigation
• No pay customers at Perkins - cleared by arrest
I - Arrest for bench warrant
2 - Arrests for obstructing legal process
1 - Arrest for giving false information
12 - Suspicious circumstances, persons L vehicles
2 - Alarms sounded - checked out o.k.
MOW llf '&Fffiff '
ce:elkease — weam covab�
9M9A10, U001MTA UZt3
nowamrasery M Me. 992.9900
Toll Fr" 14WO-36*3667
9100 a..e. • &M r.eL
DARRELL L. WOLRP
Cm Mr Shttritt
Sheriff's report for Monticello for June, 1982, continueds
2 - Medical aide
2 - Missing persons - located
9 - Public nuisances
4 - Animal complaints
2 - Miscellaneous complaints
3 - Motorcycle complaints
2 - Fires reported
S - Traffic complaints
6 - Civil matters
4 - Domestics
1 - Obscene phone call
I - Soliciting without permit - cleared
I - Trespassing
1 - Deliver emergency message
108 - Car 6 subject checks
48 - Citizen aids
'o - Motorists warned
Accidents investigated
3 - Open doors
16 - Traffic tickets issued:
3 - Speed
- Careless/reckless driving
- Disobeyed stop sign
1 - Improper passing
- Unsafe equipment
- Open bottle
- Illegal perking
Yours truly,
,1941/f'feW /(A—V
Darrell Wolff, Sherif
I&
Jams F. Pow@M Chief Deautr
24 Man EneOary Tal.ohm
Nlmdo 6821162
K%t- 47341973
MrRY.ib 2W25=
Do" 972.29241
0.ktrt. 2966454
Am..rl. 774 3MM
4 - Driving after revocation/suspension
2 - No motorcycle endorsements
Billings For the months of May, 1982 -• $ 7.349.33
June. 1982 -- S 7,349,33
TOTAL DUR $ 14,698.66